The Media's Liberal Bias

[Dr Grump]

Come on, you really are a dumbass. I agree every media outlet is biased. CNN is liberal, but Fox more than balances it out. You have lumped liberals with democrats. This simply isn't true. The Presidents numbers mean alot. If his numbers don't come up, he can't be an effective on the stump in the mid-terms. Not all liberals are stupid assholes, like you make them out to be. All Democrats aren't liberals. Thus far Jillian has made valid arguments and you don't seem to respond to them. You simply an entire paragraph calling him a "liberal" and that is your rebuttal. This tactic is only used by extremists, on both side of the fence. Hell, you'll probably call me a liberal now that I've written this. Hell, call away. If liberal means being the opposite of you, then so be it.

Dern librul!!!

 

[musicman]

LOL re homework...no, no, no...and NO re the five CEOs. I do know, having read two of Murdoch's biographies, he demands his editors on his newspapers AND the producers in the newsroom are conservative-friendly, which is borne out by the editorial slant of the newspapers he owns and Fox News. I do have an issue with your 85% figure. I'd say it's closer to about a 60-40 split, with the right-wing gaining ground....

And why ever do you think that is, Mr Bones? I believe the following post sums it up rather nicely:

I'll echo Sittaro, though being me, would have tried to put on some veneer of 'fairness', but I'll go with his take. The ownership/editorial policies have little to do with the running of a media outlet; print, radio, or television. Considering what is now happening at the Grey Lady, ownership/stockwise, I would not be shocked to see a major change in reporting and editorials in the near future, unless the minority +++stock really has a death wish for that paper. WaPo and Tribune Enterprises are in the same position. Liberalism in the form of journalism is sinking. They have blown it too many times, it being the truth. Even the left has a problem with Rathergate.

In other words, MSM/DNC apologists - on this board and elsewhere - are working themselves into a froth to no good purpose. The bias is recognized in the marketplace, where it counts. Take a look at my sig. This sentiment is shared by an increasing number of Americans, and you're seeing the results. The liberal monopoly on the dissemination of information is dead; it's a new day in America.

 

[Dr Grump]

And why ever do you think that is, Mr Bones? I believe the following post sums it up rather nicely.

It doesn't help that the liberal media keeps on shooting itself in the foot (Dan Rather's piece on Bush being but one example). However, I see the right wing media in the same light, just a different slant. Don't get me wrong over Rather either. I think he was onto something. But when you go after that big of a target, you better have your t's crossed and your i's dotted....

 

[musicman]

However, I see the right wing media in the same light, just a different slant.

You're missing my point, then. The "right-wing" media (or - if you like - the "not so far slanted to the left and consumed with hateful arrogance that it invents outright lies and presents them as objective news" media) is experiencing sustained, exponential growth. Meanwhile, the MSM is dying. Why do you think that is? Do you mean to imply that the American public are gullible and stupid, and are being led around by the nose - by a slicker, more effective class of liar?

I submit to you that competition has improved - indeed, RESCUED - journalism.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're missing my point, then. The "right-wing" media (or - if you like - the "not so far slanted to the left and consumed with hateful arrogance that it invents outright lies and presents them as objective news" media) is experiencing sustained, exponential growth. Meanwhile, the MSM is dying. Why do you think that is? Do you mean to imply that the American public are gullible and stupid, and are being led around by the nose - by a slicker, more effective class of liar?

I submit to you that competition has improved - indeed, RESCUED - journalism.

I'm not missing your point at all - I'm just not swallowing it with the same enthusiasm as you. The "invents outright lies and presents them as objective news" slogan could just as easily apply to Fox. And they definitely are a class of liar IMO. And I do not see the MSM anywhere near as slanted as you do. Do they stuff up on occasion? Absolutely. As for growth, I'd have to check out what type of growth. Are they losing ground, or are the other media gaining new ground (as in new viewers/readers etc as opposed to eating into current circulation/ratings).

 

[musicman]

I'm not missing your point at all - I'm just not swallowing it with the same enthusiasm as you. The "invents outright lies and presents them as objective news" slogan could just as easily apply to Fox. And they definitely are a class of liar IMO. And I do not see the MSM anywhere near as slanted as you do. Do they stuff up on occasion? Absolutely. As for growth, I'd have to check out what type of growth. Are they losing ground, or are the other media gaining new ground (as in new viewers/readers etc as opposed to eating into current circulation/ratings).

You go right on thinking this way if it comforts you, Dr Grump. I'm sure you're in good company; many an elite MSM bigwig is harrumphing that the Titanic is unsinkable - right along with you. How long can you and they tread water, I wonder?

Got anything to back up those accusations about Fox? I think that they, talk radio, and the blogoshere are doing a much better job of operating in that context which is proving so alien and hostile to the MSM: accountability. But, I'm listening.

 

[Dr Grump]

You go right on thinking this way if it comforts you, Dr Grump. I'm sure you're in good company; many an elite MSM bigwig is harrumphing that the Titanic is unsinkable - right along with you. How long can you and they tread water, I wonder?

Hey, I ain't that impressed by the state of the media. But I sure ain't that cynical about it either...

Got anything to back up those accusations about Fox?

Here's a start:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html

This one is interesting:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/ar...es-but-at-least-theyre-honest-about-it-maybe/

 

[musicman]

Here's a start:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me...

Here's a FART, more like! Got any more of that rational, dispassionate jounalism for us?

This one is interesting:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/ar...es-but-at-least-theyre-honest-about-it-maybe/

This guy's got nothing, and admits as much.

This is pathetic, Dr Grump. THIS is what you put up against a thirty-year, nonstop stream of MSM lies?

 

[jillian]

Of course words are powerful, thats what propaganda is all about. Its not that people I dont like hijack words, I am merely pointing out how the liberals change words instead of their values. Republicans, on the other hand, have changed the values of the party to more meet modern mainstream America.
Liberals change labels, conservatives change themselves for the better.

The Republican party today is not conservative. It's radical, extremist and has been hijacked by right wing fundamentalist Christians because that's where its bucks come from. Hence the reliance on wedge issues that most people don't see as priorities. You also make the mistake of many right-wingers and confuse liberals and democrats. Not necessarily interchangeable. Though that IS the prefect example of the manner in which the right has hijacked language since they've been spitting out the word "liberal" as if it were a cussword for two decades.

All today's Republican party is doing (at least the part that's in power right now) is try to drag this country kicking and screaming back to the 1950's. And if that were "mainstream", Bush's poll numbers wouldn't be at less than 1/3 of the population.

While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are, unfounded assertions do not fact make.

 

[Dr Grump]

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me...

Here's a FART, more like! Got any more of that rational, dispassionate jounalism for us?

This guy's got nothing, and admits as much.

This is pathetic, Dr Grump. THIS is what you put up against a thirty-year, nonstop stream of MSM lies?

Re the first one: Lying is a subjective thing. As for the second link, you didn't read the second paragraphy did you?

Now, how about you pony up some links regarding lib lies (and please, no Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass stuff - they were fired)...

 

[musicman]

Re the first one: Lying is a subjective thing.

Well - no, it isn't. That's a fascinating, illuminating statement on your part, though. It goes a long way toward explaining your sympathy with the MSM/DNC - for whom the artful lie is one of the fundamental tools of the trade, and has been for decades. We'll come back to this.

As for the second link, you didn't read the second paragraphy did you?

Yes - I did, and - I reiterate - he's got nothing. He displays a remarkable fluency in gibberish, though.

Now, how about you pony up some links regarding lib lies (and please, no Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass stuff - they were fired)...

In the first place, I'd like to know who died and made YOU hall monitor. Post links regarding lib lies, but don't quote this liar or that? I'd call that unreasonable, except that I am by no means suffering from a shortage of material on this matter. When I've got a bit more time, I'll start gathering up some links for you, if that'll make you happy. In the meantime, here's a preface:

Contrary to your belief, lying is NOT subjective. It is objective, concrete, and provable. It is the deliberate attempt to present untruth as fact - be it the outright fabrication, the distortion, the half-truth, the concealment of truth, the lie by omission, the twisting of language, the manipulation of data, and the misrepresentation of oneself as dispassionate, disinterested purveyor of fact. These have been - and remain - the coin of the realm for the MSM; standard operating procedure - and plainly observable - for the majority of my life. You probably shouldn't have gone here.

And, before we wander too far afield, I think it important to restate my original point: You and others can deny the existence of liberal media bias in the face of all reason and sanity; it doesn't matter. That bias is perceived in the marketplace, where it counts. You defend a dead man walking.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well - no, it isn't. That's a fascinating, illuminating statement on your part, though. It goes a long way toward explaining your sympathy with the MSM/DNC - for whom the artful lie is one of the fundamental tools of the trade, and has been for decades. We'll come back to this.

I reiterate - I do not have that much sympathy for the mainstream media. Some of it is good, some not so. To use an all-encompassing overview as if it is the norm is kinda lazy IMO. I take each piece of information on merit. I should have been more precise - lying can be a subjective thing.

Yes - I did, and - I reiterate - he's got nothing. He displays a remarkable fluency in gibberish, though.

Then we agree to disagree.

In the first place, I'd like to know who died and made YOU hall monitor. Post links regarding lib lies, but don't quote this liar or that?

Oh, I get it. So when the NY Times found out Blair was lying, they fired him, but because he went into print it was still a lie that was condoned by the NY Times? A very long bow to draw. I never claimed to be hall monitor, but please, if you want to use Blair or Glass as your examples, I've got a couple of straws that you can clutch if you like?

Contrary to your belief, lying is NOT subjective. It is objective, concrete, and provable. It is the deliberate attempt to present untruth as fact - be it the outright fabrication, the distortion, the half-truth, the concealment of truth, the lie by omission, the twisting of language, the manipulation of data, and the misrepresentation of oneself as dispassionate, disinterested purveyor of fact.

Which describes the Bush admin down to a T, right?

You probably shouldn't have gone here. And, before we wander too far afield, I think it important to restate my original point: You and others can deny the existence of liberal media bias in the face of all reason and sanity; it doesn't matter. That bias is perceived in the marketplace, where it counts. You defend a dead man walking.

I have gone there, and I look forward to you proving your point. However, you are going to have one mother of a problem IMO: there are thousands of newspapers, hundreds of TV stations and thousands of radio stations, let alone all different ideas etc published on the Internet - there are literally 10s of millions of articles written every year. In order to prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt, you would have to provide hundreds of thousands of articles back up your assertion. 10 won't do. 100 won't do. 1000 won't do. Not even 10,000 will do because you would have left out millions and million of other examples. IOW, cherry picking to 'prove' your POV doesn't prove anything other than you can cherry pick. Finally, I have said I DO see some bias in some left leaning publications. That fact you cannot admit the same for some of their right-leaning counterparts shows not only your own bias but that you are not interested in being fair and balanced about the issue yourself.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
You probably shouldn't have gone here. And, before we wander too far afield, I think it important to restate my original point: You and others can deny the existence of liberal media bias in the face of all reason and sanity; it doesn't matter. That bias is perceived in the marketplace, where it counts. You defend a dead man walking.


Response by mr grumpy:
I have gone there, and I look forward to you proving your point. However, you are going to have one mother of a problem IMO: there are thousands of newspapers, hundreds of TV stations and thousands of radio stations, let alone all different ideas etc published on the Internet - there are literally 10s of millions of articles written every year. In order to prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt, you would have to provide hundreds of thousands of articles back up your assertion. 10 won't do. 100 won't do. 1000 won't do. Not even 10,000 will do because you would have left out millions and million of other examples. IOW, cherry picking to 'prove' your POV doesn't prove anything other than you can cherry pick. Finally, I have said I DO see some bias in some left leaning publications. That fact you cannot admit the same for some of their right-leaning counterparts shows not only your own bias but that you are not interested in being fair and balanced about the issue yourself.
__________________


THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS. You ask me to prove my assertation, I provede very well done and unbiased study. You totally ignore then immediately afterward still discount my 85% figure, when the study already proved it.

What is also funny is we can drum up name after name after name of major MAJOR media outlets that are SCREAMING LIBERAL, and every time you guys have to yell the same thing over and over, FOX! FOX! FOX! FOX!
And not only that, FOX doesnt even lean that far right, it just APPEARS far right to you guys cuz your heads are so jacked up the left side cavity of your you know what, that you have no objectivity left whatsoever.
NY TIMEs FOX! LA TIMES FOX! ABC FOX! CBS FOX! NBC FOX!

and your last little presumption and attempt to evade just doesnt cut it with any clear thinking individual. To claim, OH THERE ARE MILLONS OF MEDIA OUTLETS is disengenous at best, a downright lie at worst. ONE MAJOR MEDIA outlet like NBC will consume 90% of all the minor ones put together, so those millions upon millions of media outlets we have to study, supposedly WE DONT HAVE TO. GO BACK AND READ THE STUDY I POSTED.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The Republican party today is not conservative. It's radical, extremist and has been hijacked by right wing fundamentalist Christians because that's where its bucks come from. Hence the reliance on wedge issues that most people don't see as priorities. You also make the mistake of many right-wingers and confuse liberals and democrats. Not necessarily interchangeable. Though that IS the prefect example of the manner in which the right has hijacked language since they've been spitting out the word "liberal" as if it were a cussword for two decades.

All today's Republican party is doing (at least the part that's in power right now) is try to drag this country kicking and screaming back to the 1950's. And if that were "mainstream", Bush's poll numbers wouldn't be at less than 1/3 of the population.

While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are, unfounded assertions do not fact make.

I would wonder where you get your opinion from? I have traveled cross country driving twice in the last year. I went through and stopped at places in Missouri, arkansas, Conn. NY Maryland, INDIANA Ill, NEW YORK, canada, Mich. Ohio, BOTH VIRGINIAs calif. ariz NEW MEX texas, oklahoma, pennsy. and more,,,fact of the matter is,
I talk to normal everyday folk all the time all over the country, and the common thing amonst them other than the city folk, is they are republican conservatives, and they are NOT RADICAL. You can call it that all you like, but they are moms who work at night, men who work during the day feeding their families, truckers, business men, doctors, lawyers, general laborers and yea, sometimes even school kids.
They are just normal eveeryday hard working Americans, they are what this country was built on, they are what drives this country, small business. They support the tax cuts, they support the war, they belive in freedom of religion, they think kids should be able to pray in school or at their graduation if they want to. THIS IS AMERICA, not some pencil pushing geek in some acadamia white ivory tower in Boston, who reads 20 newspapers a day so he thinks he is more qualified to have an opinion on what is really going on in Iraq on the ground level than the foot soldiers over there, and then claims those foot soldiers are just poor ignorant uneducated people and his opinoin is better than theirs.
So, Im just wondering, where did you get your opinions on what conservative america is all about, from reading unbiased, (bwhahahhaha) newspapers? I GOT IT STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Oh, and its not exactly interchangable, rep/cons and dem/lib. but for the most part it is.
Regarding hijacking the language, me thinks that would be the liberals, errr, progressives,,,, SEE !!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

I would wonder where you get your opinion from? I have traveled cross country driving twice in the last year. I went through and stopped at places in Missouri, arkansas, Conn. NY Maryland, INDIANA Ill, NEW YORK, canada, Mich. Ohio, BOTH VIRGINIAs calif. ariz NEW MEX texas, oklahoma, pennsy. and more,,,fact of the matter is,
I talk to normal everyday folk all the time all over the country, and the common thing amonst them other than the city folk, is they are republican conservatives, and they are NOT RADICAL. You can call it that all you like, but they are moms who work at night, men who work during the day feeding their families, truckers, business men, doctors, lawyers, general laborers and yea, sometimes even school kids.
They are just normal eveeryday hard working Americans, they are what this country was built on, they are what drives this country, small business. They support the tax cuts, they support the war, they belive in freedom of religion, they think kids should be able to pray in school or at their graduation if they want to. THIS IS AMERICA, not some pencil pushing geek in some acadamia white ivory tower in Boston, who reads 20 newspapers a day so he thinks he is more qualified to have an opinion on what is really going on in Iraq on the ground level than the foot soldiers over there, and then claims those foot soldiers are just poor ignorant uneducated people and his opinoin is better than theirs.
So, Im just wondering, where did you get your opinions on what conservative america is all about, from reading unbiased, (bwhahahhaha) newspapers? I GOT IT STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Oh, and its not exactly interchangable, rep/cons and dem/lib. but for the most part it is.
Regarding hijacking the language, me thinks that would be the liberals, errr, progressives,,,, SEE !!!!!!!!!!

Sure you got it straight from the horses' mouth....a bunch of extremists who think they're mainstream? Heh!

Pssssssssssssst....if extremists are the mainstream, Bush's approval rating would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than 32%.

And, dear, you might want to watch the tone. You don't know what I read, listen to or have studied. Lots of smart people disagree with you. Treating them like their ijits to make some type of point isn't exactly the way to foster debate or get anyone to do anything but ignore your posts.

 

[Dr Grump]

Quote:
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS. You ask me to prove my assertation, I provede very well done and unbiased study. You totally ignore then immediately afterward still discount my 85% figure, when the study already proved it.

That study did not mention the 85% figure. You can either back it up or you cannot. It is also flaws in that it said, for example, 8% of the Washington correspondants thought Bush would make a better president than Kerry. You somehow think that validates the study? Maybe half or more of that 92% didn't like Kerry either and would have preferred, say, Colin Powell, but that question probably wasn't asked, so just because they thought Kerry would be better, doesn't mean they are Repubs, but maybe they just can't stand the current admin. But we'll never know because those questions were not asked.

What is also funny is we can drum up name after name after name of major MAJOR media outlets that are SCREAMING LIBERAL, and every time you guys have to yell the same thing over and over, FOX! FOX! FOX! FOX! And not only that, FOX doesnt even lean that far right, it just APPEARS far right to you guys cuz your heads are so jacked up the left side cavity of your you know what, that you have no objectivity left whatsoever.
NY TIMEs FOX! LA TIMES FOX! ABC FOX! CBS FOX! NBC FOX

I mentioned NY Post, Wash Times, Drudge etc...all majory news sources.

Quote:and your last little presumption and attempt to evade just doesnt cut it with any clear thinking individual. To claim, OH THERE ARE MILLONS OF MEDIA OUTLETS is disengenous at best, a downright lie at worst. ONE MAJOR MEDIA outlet like NBC will consume 90% of all the minor ones put together, so those millions upon millions of media outlets we have to study, supposedly WE DONT HAVE TO. GO BACK AND READ THE STUDY I POSTED.

I never said there were millions of outlets. I said there were millions of articles. As for your "NBC would consume 90% of minor ones put together"...talk about hilarious. No wonder I find your "85%" figure so laughable...

 

[manu1959]

The only study I saw, you didn't post, somebody else did. I have already pointed out flaws in that study. That study also did not mention the 85% figure. You can either back it up or you cannot.

I mentioned NY Post, Wash Times, Drudge etc...all majory news sources.

I never said there were millions of outlets. I said there were millions of articles. As for your "NBC would consume 90% of minor ones put together"...talk about hilarious. No wonder I find your "85%" figure so laughable...

so are you saying the media does or does not have a liberal bias?

 

[Dr Grump]

so are you saying the media does or does not have a liberal bias?

I'm saying it has both....

 

[manu1959]

I'm saying it has both....

not possible for an entity to be biased in two different directions

as a whole it leans one way or another....

 

[Annie]

That study did not mention the 85% figure. You can either back it up or you cannot. It is also flaws in that it said, for example, 8% of the Washington correspondants thought Bush would make a better president than Kerry. You somehow think that validates the study? Maybe half or more of that 92% didn't like Kerry either and would have preferred, say, Colin Powell, but that question probably wasn't asked, so just because they thought Kerry would be better, doesn't mean they are Repubs, but maybe they just can't stand the current admin. But we'll never know because those questions were not asked.




I mentioned NY Post, Wash Times, Drudge etc...all majory news sources.



I never said there were millions of outlets. I said there were millions of articles. As for your "NBC would consume 90% of minor ones put together"...talk about hilarious. No wonder I find your "85%" figure so laughable...

Here you go:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

BTW, they had to pick from the candidates, not from 'whom they'd have preferred'. After all, Che was still dead...